Ask The Tropers

"Awesome" pages are for collecting awesome moments, or moments that some tropers regard as awesome enough to be worth adding. The entry that said "the entire video" was misuse and should stay removed. The entries that do refer to specific moments or events should be restored.

I will say that the arguments presented are inherently subjective. 9 hours may be an issue to some, but other people absolutely love longform content like that and find the work put in to be inherently cool. And to people who agree with his opinions, clearly they'd find it awesome.

I agree with Vilui that "the entire video" is probably misuse, but you have to keep in mind that these pages are from the perspective of fans primarily and fans would probably enjoy a 9-hour breakdown of a movie they dislike.

(I do want to point out that Kendall defending his dad knowing about sexual abuse is treated as terrible and hypocritical in-universe, okay carry on.)

Should Bob Chipman even have a Awesome moments page? He's not a Channel Awesome style reviewer (with skits and storylines). He mostly just gives his opinions on movies and pop culture. Isn't this basically troping real life?

^ His Game Overthinker show did have a storyline, but in general reviewers do tend to get Awesome moments listed that are about their reviews. How much of a reviewer should or shouldn't be tropeable is still under debate.

Like I said before, simply disagreeing with a moment being awesome is not enough to justify deleting it. If a listed moment is innaccurate, disingenuous or badly formatted, that's different.

As for whether or not reviewers should get "moments", that's a debate worth having, but this is not really about that. It's about whether a couple specific moments apply.

I can also say that, even as someone who dislikes Bob Chipman's work, I also think the removal of "moments" in this way goes against the intended spirit of the site and those sections of it.

If we're to keep his moments, we should do some weeding out of what is awesome: For example:

** The entirety of his "Batman V. Superman" Really That Bad analysis. Chipman delivers his critique in a mature respectful tone, without insulting the filmmakers personally, and goes into detail acknowledging and addressing common arguments in defense of the film.

I disagree about his "mature" or "respectful tone". The man is spewing out insults, calling it trash, and speaking so fast that he is clearly ranting. So at the very least, remove this. It's also, not really a "moment".

** Two of the best things he does is to effectively and succinctly fix the movie's greatest problems. Succinct means brief. Can you really say he was succinct over the course of three hours?

*** The first being the 'Diana/Wonder Woman watching the teaser trailer for the Justice League scene', wherein Bob proposes letting Batman, the normal human who is discovering a lot of this new information for the first time, and whose perspective the audience has been following the entire movie, be the one to discover the existence of more metahumans.

Problem is. We did see his perspective. So Bob wasn't paying attention.

As for the "No Batman" suggestion; That idea is so far removed from the film that it doesn't even have merit being awesome. This is not film criticism. This is a guy trying to rewrite the entire film. The plot would not, as the troper claimed "remain the same", because a great deal of the film centres around Batman's struggle to fight crime. Luthor can't really fill that gap, because he's supposed to the one pitting the two heroes against each other. Wether that was done well or not is irrelevant; That is the plot. So, Bob is not "fixing" the story. He's just writing a different one.

The only thing I'd credit as awesome is the fact that Bob apparently did all of this "while maintaining his normal work responsibilities". That's the only thing I'd classify as objectively impressive.

Otherwise, I don't think my mass deletion was against the spirit of this site. The video in question is one of hatred and vitriol and I don't it deserves to be treated as some achievement. We might as well reinstate Mauler and all of his videos if we think THIS counts as an awesome moment.

First thing first, Moment of Awesome is subjective by definition. What counts is awesome is some people think so. What we can do, is to gather consensus that something is not actually awesome, not a moment, or was added improperly.

Not a moment, it's a General example. Also to me it sounds normal, not an outstanding or a difficult thing to do.

Not a fan of example grouping in general. The following subbulets would be better separately.

Feels like gushing over a proposed Fix Fic existing and not something featured on Bob Chipman.

I agree with this, though I also take issue with his attitude being considered "mature and respectful".

I also take issue with the guy acting like he knows what the movie's "greatest problems" are, without actually listing them.

OP, not to cast aspersions on your character, but as someone who has watched all three parts of Really That Bad multiple times, you come off as really misrepresenting Bob's comments during it. He says multiple times that he has no beef with Snyder, goes out of his way in Part 3 to put him over and say that his body of work, regardless of one's opinion of it, is both daring and impressively personal, and doesn't really insult anyone involved with BVS or the DCEU except maybe to say he thinks Henry Cavill and Jason Momoa are bad actors which, isn't the same as insulting them on a personal level. He even says at the end that he doesn't think any of the actors, director or writers are to blame for the movie's badness, but rather Warner Bros. themselves, for going into the movie with the completely wrong mindset of "Well, we have to compete with the MCU and Disney-Marvel, so we'll try to force a square peg through the round hole of forcing the followup to Man of Steel to be also a Batman movie, feature Wonder Woman in the world's longest running supporting player turn, host in-movie teases for Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg and also have a nightmare sequence building up Darkseid and the New Gods while also doing a retread of Injustice: Gods Among Us!" So no version of the movie would have ended up good.

Unless you take "Criticising a movie on technical, writing and acting levels, in-depth, while discussing its place in the wider context of movie franchises and shared cinematic universes" as a personal insult, I don't know how you can possibly claim he's being disparaging.

That being said, I'm fine with deleting some of these if there's consensus that they are too general, or not proper moments of awesome. My objection has always been that there was no consensus established or proper reason given beyond "I, personally and subjectively, disagree with these so they shouldn't be listed and no-one else should list them again."

309216364, we're not here to discuss the creator, focus on accuracy of examples.

I don't think we should have reviewer awesome examples in this context, but I don't think this is a good reason to delete them

"He says multiple times that he has no beef with Snyder"

That's what people do. Of course he says that. Doesn't make him any less disingenuous. Here's an example in the video:

He claims the movie is just a set up for other movies and a sequel for Man of Steel before it even THINKS of being a movie in its own right. He then immediately labels it a failure on its face, without proving this, nor explaining why this is a proven negative, considering every Avengers movie is guilty of the same thing.

-"...no version of the movie would have ended up good." Okay, and you think I'M biased?

Unless you take "Criticising a movie on technical, writing and acting levels, in-depth, while discussing its place in the wider context of movie franchises and shared cinematic universes" as a personal insult, I don't know how you can possibly claim he's being disparaging.

He's not being IN-DEPTH in this video, He's saying a lot, but none of it really matters. He's just repeating himself ad nauseam. Most of the time, he keeps justifying why he needs to criticize. He keeps circling back to the argument that people are expected to know who these characters are. And that is not a criticism. We're expected to know who they are? Yes. That right. Because of their symbols. They are recognizable. But at the same time, they are not the exact same as their mainstream counterparts, and no one needs to have read comics to be able to relate with thim.

And then the guy claims that Superman bears no ressemblance beyond name and appearance to the character in the comics [[38:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0]].

Bob insists "if you know the comics, you know it makes sense" and in spite of that the movie "doesn't make sense". I can say definitively that neither statement is true. In fact, you should NOT need to read the comics to know how the makes sense, and that if the movie "doesn't make sense". Knowing the comics is a bonus, but you don't actually need to read them. Bob is making that misguided assumption and using that as his trump card. It's a baseless argument because characters are being rewritten all the time.

One of his most absurd criticisms is Bob blaming Superman for reckless collateral damage on Smallville and Metropolis and that he doesn't care that much. Never mind that Zod and the US military were largely responsible for the former and Zod was entirely responsible for the latter, except for that final skirmish which was less then 1% of the damage.

Then there's his complaint about 9/11, which... holy crap, he contradicts himself. One moment, he says he doesn't understand. The he says he knows why, and claims it's a cool visual, but then can't understand why Batman would be angry at Superman? And then he argues that is proof of bad execution without proving anything.

Look, I really don't want to have to rewatch the entire video and summarize it for you, but the video is filled with bad-faith arguments, so if the above isn't enough... if I must, I will bring them to you.

Again, we're not discussing the creator. We're discussing if the removals were valid. Your opinion doesn't trump others' here so it's not necessary for the discussion. If other people genuinely found these moments awesome then that's what actually matters, assuming other rules aren't broken.

Okay, so that means what he said about him in his video isn't any more relevant that I said, right?

I apologize.

Anyway, if we ignore the creator and focus on the message itself, I genuinely struggle to see anything awesome about it beyond the length, and the commitment. The ideas themselves are interesting, but hardly worthy of praise. That being said, if they are not to be removed, perhaps they should be reworded. If that is a consensus everyone can agree on, I move to making suggestions on that matter.

^ Again, even as someone who technically agrees with your view on Bob Chipman, the point of these sections isn't to remove examples because "well I didn't think it was awesome", that's a really narrow-minded view of how these sections work.

That’s not why I’m suggesting they be removed.

I’m saying that there is nothing here. It’s not just “I didn’t think”, so much as there not being anything of value.

I’m not being narrow-minded at all. I’ve had plenty edits removed because other people THOUGHT they didn’t meet the criteria. And I’ve pleaded my case and been rejected. I am under no delusions and I do not appreciate you making these judgments about me.

It doesnt seem they are making judgements towards you, only observations. There seems no malice in thier statements. In any case consensus appears to leave as is. So seemingly the matter appears resolved. Lockdown?

I don't think any consensus has actually been reached. Anonimus noted that at least one of the mentions is hardly awesome. It's just normal.

As for no malice, I'd argue that bad-faith arguments, while not outwardly malicious, are cause for deletion.

And I'd say most people would be fine with deleting that moment. But your claims that the entire video trilogy is bad faith criticism is not a widely shared view from what I can see, and you didn't even try to get a second opinion.

I did try. That's what this is, isn't it?

And so far, I've yet to see anyone explain why the moments are awesome.

Moreover, I thought we weren't supposed to be going into deep-dive analysis of the video. I thought it was the moments on this page. Every time, I try to make my case in regards for a second opinion, I get shut down, because someone thinks I am attack ing the creator. If I use content from the video, is that not evidence?

And if that's not enough, this moment is listed as in the Dethroning Moment of Suck. Because he literally lied about the ending so it would fit with his narrative. I feel like manipulating evidence negates any argument.

Anyway

The examples should do that, or they're zero context. The ones you linked seem to describe why the moments appear awesome. If you disagree then you disagree. One thing considered an awesome moment to one can be a DMOS for another because that is what YMMV means.

One thing I will add is I think it should be okay to count an episode of a series as a "moment" in some cases, at least if the premise is awesome, but this seems better suited to describe specific moments considered awesome to the viewer.

I dunno, I think saying "this episode" is a bit too broad and general.

Its not far from there to say "this movie/book/webcomic/entire work" is Awesome/Tearjerker/Funny.

Especially in a case like this where an episode is hours and hours long.

And...there are amazing episodes of any work, things that fans would say are Awesome from start to finish. But that feels like loosening the definition for something that is already expanded why beyond what it was (Moments were originally for a single moment from an entire work and now a single episode of TV can have aa series of Walls of text listing every single "cooll" thing from the episode).

See this is what I am saying. To list the entire episode as a moment is wrong. Especially since it's actually three episodes.

If they want to use those two examples, then fine. I will argue no more on that. But to list the entire series would require more examples.

People have already been saying that saying "the entire episode" is too broad. The issue is that these points were either skipped over or just generally ignored because the discussion kept derailing into opinions on the videos themselves.

So the entire episode is too broad. That much is established.

Let's move on to the points, themselves.

The first point of him "succinctly fixing the movie's greatest problems". Anyone want to share their thoughts on that?

I mean I agree with that point? Does it matter? Other youtubers will sing nothing but praises about that film and others will agree with that point. Is it not objective?

Yes it matters. And no it is not objective. The movie's problems are always subjective, and the guy who wrote this treated them as OBJECTIVE.

Now tell me why you agree with it. Especially the word succinctly, given that the videos are over nine hours.

As we've told you multiple times, you do not debate moments based on your own opinion. People are allowed to think these videos are awesome. You don't have to agree for them to be valid.

Yeah I don't particularly think we should have moments for reviews that revolve around the reviewer's opinions but your primary concern seems to be that you don't agree with the reviewer

I'm not debating based on my own opinion! My god, it feels like you're not even reading what I write. I want to get YOUR opinions. Please stop lecturing me.

Opinions aren't relevant here. I don't care about Bob Chipman. At all. These examples are completely unimportant to me, if you actually want my opinion. My point is that moments are kept if the audience finds them awesome. You have evidence that people do. The reasons why mean absolutely nothing here because audience reactions aren't beholden to facts and logic and reason. Just feelings, and people agreeing with a moment is more important than people not.

Look, you seem to be lecturing us. You asked for an opinion I gave it. Why am I having to defend something you asked for? Also why should someone describe "why" its awesome? You clearly do not think it so, so describing "why" is moot.

Also why should someone describe "why" its awesome?

Because it would be a zero-context example otherwise.

I think we're just going around in circles at this point.

They mean in this discussion. The examples have enough context but they're asking people to justify their opinions.

Basically, this is not the place to debate with the actual points of the entry. It is completely irrelevant. Nobody has to "justify" why they think the entry is awesome, the ONLY pertinent point of contention in this discussion is whether or not it counts as a "moment".

Okay let me break this down. Anonimus gave a compelling argument: both of Chipman's suggestions sound less like criticism and fixing the plot, and more like a Fix Fic. So maybe these suggestions should go there instead. If it is the opinion of the majority that these changes are genuinely an improvement to the movie, I understand.

But otherwise, as Arctimon says, it's a zero-context example. This is just a guy describing how he wanted the story to be told without proving why it would be better. This is not evidence of his skills as a critic, which is his JOB. It's fan-fiction.

And Tuvok, you did not simply "give your opinion". You questioned why it matters, which I think is disingenuous. I gave my reasoning. Am I wrong to ask for yours?

This is just a guy describing how he wanted the story to be told without proving why it would be better. This is not evidence of his skills as a critic, which is his JOB. It's fan-fiction. As we've said before, this kind of critique is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since these kinds of pages are inherently subjective anyway. Any real concerns that could be made are just being boiled down to "well I didn't think it was good", which isn't the standard these pages are held to.

I'm not saying: "well, I didn't think it was good" and I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to reduce everything I say to that. It is very disrespectful.

The first example is exactly what the film was doing so it doesn't even make sense, therefore, it does not add the suspense that said troper claimed it would add. As Anonimous noted (not me) that the troper was gushing over a Fix Fic rather than complimenting Bob Chipman.

Again, this is not me saying: "I didn't think it was good". It was me and someone else saying: "This doesn't fit the category". And with the latter example, it doesn't even make sense. Am I wrong for wanting context?

The second example is downright contradictory, insisting that by removing Batman and having Luthor take his place, the plot would remain the same and have no extensive retooling. But he then goes onto to say how it completely changes Luthor's character, which means that there's no Luthor. The troper did not make sense with their example, likewise they falsely classified this character as "heroic counterpoint" to Superman, despite the fact that Superman is the hero, and is not nearly as destructive as they say he is.

^ You're not wrong for wanting context, but saying things like "The first example is exactly what the film was doing so it doesn't even make sense, therefore, it does not add the suspense that said troper claimed it would add" and "Superman is the hero, and is not nearly as destructive as they say he is." are based on one's subjective reading of the film. You can disagree with them, but it's not grounds for totally removing them as examples, nor is it wrong for fans of his work to post them in a section like this.

I questioned why it matters because its an opnion. Like yours it exists without justification. The only justification being I have it and I think its true. Like you and your opinion. I dont need to evaluate its worth, to have it exist.

Man, seeing how we are at 42 (43 with mine) responses in this thread alone, I say that either this thread is locked or we wait for the mods to reply to this one, because I doubt numbers here is not accepting anything that is told to them.

Okay. We wait for the mods.

Just pointing it out because it annoys me. It doesn't look like anyone reverted your deletion anyway.

Really? I thought it was removed.

Why? Looking at the page history there you can easily tell its still there. Why would you create a post and make an prolonged argument for something which has not occurred? It comes across like some preemptive post in case it gets removed? A 40+ ATT post just in case your delete was removed.

Do we not have a Moments cleanup thread? Maybe it should be moved there?

I feel like we've done all we can here.

Here's the link to the Moments cleanup thread.

^ Thank you for supplying the link. Further discussion about this entry should happen there.

So what we have here seems to be a situation where the deletion is considered reasonable because a whole episode doesn't qualify for a "moment", but the edit reason of "I disagree this is awesome" is faulty.